The difference is that every prisoner in a private prison is an income source, so every law that creates fewer prisoners (such as drug legalization) is a loss of income. Are all public prisons run the same way? That is, are the prisons funded on a per-prisoner-per-day basis? Or do they get an overall annual budget, and then have to spend it as best they can to house the prisoners they're sent?
In the former case, harsh laws are good for them, same as the private scenario. But in the latter case -- fewer prisoners on the same budget -- more permissive laws would be an unconditional win. I don't know which way it actually works, just spelling out an unstated assumption that's being made upthread.
Re:California bans private prisons
by philwelch on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @07:56PM
(#21011828)
More prisoners means more jobs for prison guards which means negotiating leverage for higher pay, better working conditions, and better job security. If there were significantly fewer prisoners, there would be layoffs of prison guards, which would very much be against the interests of the union.
The unions and their membership have a financial conflict of interest when it comes to public public that impacts incarceration rate. Prison unions have, for example, lobbied extensively to keep various drugs criminalized in states where the public was going in another direction.
It's obviously a difficult subject with a lot of concerns to balance, but the posters here are just arguing that the problems of private prisons are not all unique to private prisons-- the employees of public prisons (and their orgs) have some of the same kinds of conflicts of interest.